gainer said:
Howard did not make any mistakes that I could see in what he did or the photos to illustrate it. He did not cover the subject as thoroughly as he might have. Whether the article was cut in the editorial process, I do not know. His comments about the toxicity of pyro were not from his own discovery, but I think what he was getting at is that if a less toxic process can get equal or better results, that is the one you should use.
We certainly are entitled to criticize where we think it necessary, but I believe the attribution of ulterior motives is not a necessary part of such criticism. When we perceive an error in theory or practice, I would rather simply point out the error and let it go at that. It proves nothing about the virtues of pyro to impugn Howard's character.
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you on both counts. For one, most everybody here will tell you TMX 100 will not stain as well and will not show as great an advantage in pyro as many other films, even it's sibling 400 TMX. You say you dont see any mistakes, to me this is the most evident mistake. If you are going to choose a film to demonstrate the advantages of pyro, pick one that works the best, not the worst...no?
Is it any surprise that UM turned out to be the better technique? Not if you pick one variable that deliberately puts the alternate technique at a disadvantage. But as I said, this is immaterial, one can choose to believe him or not on this and move on.
You say his comments about pyro toxicity are not from his own discovery, and this is precisely my point, why make statements about something you know absolutely nothing about? Why make assumptions on the toxicity of something based on one case of a famous photographer. If this is the kind of statements that should be taken at face value, then I can counter his assertion by saying that Michael A Smith has been putting his hands both in pyro and Amidol just as long as Weston now, and he shows no indications of Parkinson's disease, so he must be wrong. Both statements would be wrong. His and mine. There is not a causal relationship that pyro causes Parkinson's and hinting or speculating about it on an article is just plain wrong.
Let me put it this way, Ascorbic acid has an LD50 of 3900 mg/kg in mouse, how about I start a rumor that Patrick Gainer's Vitamin C developer is toxic and people should stay away from it? Can you see my point? Taking a seemingly accurate data an using it without the proper context and without the proper analysis can create a snow ball effect, specially with those who are not scientifically trained. To this day I still see people who refuse to take advantage of pyro developers because of the supposed "toxicity" rumor started by that dumb woman in her book. Is pyro toxic? Sure it is! is it Toxic in the concentrations we use it, not at all! Just like your developer.
I dont understand the reason why this article was printed, not in the form that it was. You might want to give Bond the benefit of the doubt, me, I think it was a poor editing choice on the part of PT, and a self serving desire to promote UM over anything else by Bond. Call me a cynic but that is how I see it.
